Heroin should be legalized and sold in a similar fashion as alcohol and cannabis.

This is slightly different than the debates I usually have. Instead of arguing about all drugs, I’m going to narrow it down to one particular drug to keep my opponent from jumping all over the place. Multiple times when I debunk something about one drug they go to another and make me have to chase them around. That’s why I’ve chosen to cover only heroin. 

I realize that alcohol and cannabis are sold slightly differently in the US. The reason I chose both of these methods of distribution is because they should be combined in some sense for this drug. There should be places where people can purchase their heroin, have access to clean needles, and a safe environment to use the drug. It should also be quality controlled as cannabis and alcohol both are, and there should be limits on how much a person can possess at a time. 

Before we go deeply into this debate it’s important to nail down what heroin actually is. I’m going to give a brief and simple overview of the drugs pharmacology. Heroin is Diacetylmorphine, it is a drug made from modifying the morphine molecule. The only difference between morphine and heroin, are two acetyl bonds added to the morphine molecule. Hence the name, di-acetyl-morphine. These two acetyl bonds have very little pharmacological effect. All they do is cause heroin to have slightly higher affinity for the receptors they bind to. Which means it takes less of the drug to achieve the same effects. That is one way of measuring potency. Since heroin is so similar to morphine it also has all of the same benefits as morphine. It’s effective at treating pain, it’s effective at treating bronchitis, it’s effective and causing euphoria. It also has the same side effects, causes constipation, in high doses it can cause loss of consciousness and even death, if taken repeatedly at high doses it can cause the user to become addicted or form a tolerance to the drug. Toxicologically opioids are pretty safe drugs. Unlike amphetamines they don’t cause permanent damage to the brain, unlike alcohol they don’t cause permanent damage to the liver. The biggest concern is chronic constipation and the health problems that can pose, which comparatively are minimal for healthy people. 

All opiates derived from morphine agonize (or activate) the Mu-opioid receptors (MOR). They have very little affinity with the other opioid receptors called kappa and delta opioid receptors. The main mechanism for the effects they cause is agonizing the MOR. Heroin is slightly more effective at agonizing these receptors which is why it is 2-5x as potent as morphine, depending on route of administration. Heroin and morphine are so similar that if someone were to eat heroin, the drug is metabolized into morphine before it ever reaches the brain. So, I can go into more depth into all of this need be, but what I’m trying to point out is that morphine and heroin, do the same thing to the brain, cause the same effects, are metabolized by the same enzymes, are absorbed by the same receptors, they are the same drug. Your brain can not tell the difference between morphine and heroin. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441876/- mechanism of action and low toxicity

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8930175/#:~:text=Heroin%20is%20rapidly%20metabolized%20by,yield%206%2Dmonoacetylmorphine%20and%20morphine. - metabolic processes

The reason I am harping on this so much is to get out ahead of my opponent because everyone always talks about heroin like it’s the most addictive, most dangerous drug there is. That simply isn’t the case. Heroin is not more addictive than morphine, there is no evidence to support that. There is no pharmacological mechanism for that to be the case. So why are there more people addicted to heroin than morphine? That isn’t a pharmacology issue, that’s an availability issue. Heroin is more available, more potent, and cheaper than ofher opiates, including morphine. So of course anyone who is an opioid addict is going to go for the cheapest drug that has the most bang for their buck, which is heroin. I’m sure my opponent will try to combat this. Which is why I made the character count 30,000 so if he does attempt to I can go fully into the pharmacology and explain why what I just said is true. 

Now I will make my first argument for the legalization of heroin. It is to promote the safety of the drug user, and to make using this drug as safe as possible. There is nothing that can be done perfectly safely. Everything has inherent risks. However, our government actively tried to make these dangerous things, as safe as possible. For example, to drive a car one must pass tests, drive with an adult at first, cars must have brake lights, must wear seat belts, can’t go over a certain speed, etc. That is our government passing regulations to make driving a car as safe as possible. Not to make it perfectly safe, but to try and minimize the risks as much as possible. 

None of that is occurring with heroin use. There is no regulations on quality control, there is no education on how to much take, there is no regulations on who is selling the drug. If we were to legalize heroin, and regulate it in a similar fashion as we do with alcohol and cannabis, it would make the use of the drug much safer, and save many lives. My evidence for this claim is that in  the average drug overdose death 6 or more substances are found in the person. This is evidence of two things. 1: The person Didn’t know what drugs are safe and unsafe to combine. 2: the person didn’t know they were taking that many drugs to begin with. 

Both of these things can be happening at the same time. Most people do not know it is unsafe to take opioids with Xanax, antihistamines, or alcohol. That is an education issue, and the reason we have poor drug education is because of how stigmatized drug use is. There is no one teaching young adults how to use drugs safely, they’re just told not to do them ever. Just like how sex education used to be handled. Once we modernized sex education there was a drop in STDs and teen pregnancy. This same type of education should be applied to drugs. 

The second option,’is the more likely, and kills more people than the first. Depending on where the study is done anywhere from 85-98% of drugs seized by police contained 4 or more substances. Fentanyl, and the feline anesthetic called Xylazine are the most common cutting agents with opioids. Both of these drugs increase the risk of fatal overdose. This is because combining opiates with any other depressant increases the chances of respiratory depression. This is basically your body becoming so relaxed it can expand the lungs to breathe. 

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/ecstasy-abuse/adulterants-in-drugs-mdma Source on contamination. 

To give concrete evidence for this point, I will go to a website called drugsdata.org. This website posts results of drug sampled being tested with high quality equipment called a GC/MS. Gas chromatography and Mass spectrometer. This machine beats substances up until they turn into a gas, and they are then analyzed one at a time by the mass spectrometer. I am going to search heroin, into the search bar, and post the first three results. I’m doing it this way so everyone reading can do the same thing to see I’m not bending any evidence. Now there is bias in this website, but bias against the point I’m making. The bias is that these are responsible drug users sending their samples in, not your average addict is willing to pay $100 to have their heroin tested. Even though that is the case, the first three results are still astounding. 

Fentanyl

These drugs are listed in order of their concentration in the product. Cocaine is the most prevalent in the product, so on and so forth. This was sold as heroin.‘it does contain heroin, but in very low concentrations compared to the others. I can break down what each of these drugs are if the judges of my opponent would like. 

This, again, could be easily avoided by regulated the drug heroin to be sold to adults in dispensaries and in safe injection sites. 

Caffeine

Again this product does contain heroine, but contains much more caffeine, fentanyl, and xylazine. If someone took this drug like it was heroin they likely died. 

I will keep this argument short and cover one point at a time so my opponent doesn’t have the ability to nit pick a long and wide ranging argument. I will keep him focused on the safety and pharmacology for this round. Next round I will expand upon my original arguments and add more layers to the debate. 

My opponent strawmanned my argument very badly on his post. Which really allows me to side step the majority of his argument. I never said legalization would make all risks of drugs go away. I never said people would stop dying. I said it would lower the chances of people dying, because when drugs are illegal, they become contaminated with other drugs and that causes a dangerous situation to form. That situation is more dangerous than the drugs themselves.
His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. Alcohol is much, much more toxic than heroin. It is also much more disinhibiting, which can lead to drunk driving, and other dangerous activities. Heroin is rarely involved in fatal car accidents, it has happened, but not as often as alcohol. Usually because most heroin users (and alcohol users) don’t drive when high, or drunk. They tend to use their drug responsibly in their home. However, alcohol has a way of making the user not care too much about consequences when very intoxicated by the substance. Which is why you see more deaths. It is metabolized into a known carcinogen and neurotoxin called acetaldehyde. Alcohol is also very Un-potent. So the user must ingest an absurd amount of alcohol molecules for the user to feel the effect. That wouldn’t be a problem if every single one of those molecules weren’t metabolized into a neurotoxin. It is also immensely toxic to the liver when abused. Moderate amounts of alcohol are actually beneficial to the user, it prevents type 2 diabetes, it prevents strokes and other heart issues as well. Only once the person begins to abuse it do they run into issues. Also alcohol and other drugs that agonize the GABA(A) receptor are the only drugs in earth that can kill the user from withdrawal alone. So you picking this drug that has some legitimate toxicity concerns, that is already legal, as a way of saying a drug with less toxicity shouldn’t be legalized is odd to me.

However, his alcohol rant is further destroyed when we see the situation that arose during alcohol prohibition. 10s of thousands of people were dying from contaminated alcohol. Others were left blinded and maimed by the drug methanol being left in the final product. Why was this happening? There were no regulations on the quality of the product being sold to people. As well as the US government making bootleggers poison their alcohol.l with methanol. That lack of regulation and evil government action left people, blinded, maimed, and even dead. Once alcohol was legalized the problem of methanol contamination went away. He claimed that legalization will not save many lives by bringing up alcohol. Even though alcohol is literally the prime example of this taking place. Just arguing about something he doesn’t know anything about. Basically made my point for me without knowing. I am aware alcohol still kills people. However it is much less dangerous to purchase and use now, than it was during alcohol prohibition, for the reasons I just listed. The American government also attempted to poison cannabis users with a neurotoxin that causes the permanent onset of Parkinson’s syndrome under president Raegan. Keeping drugs illegal allows this to happen, is this why heroin has such a bad contamination issue now? Who knows. 

I will ignore my opponent making axiomatic assumptions like calling drugs poison. No use in engaging with that. 

Since he is talking about the government I will bring up my next point. He says remember “We the People” I ask him and the judges to remember that The American constitution has the “pursuit of happiness” clause, and describes it as an inalienable right. This mean that no government or person has the right to take away my pursuit of happiness as long as I am not hurting other people or preventing others from pursuing their happiness. Drug use should be covered by this clause. I have never used heroin, because I don’t trust it to buy of the street. However I have used very similar drugs that are essentially the same thing like oxycodone and hydrocodone. I am a big fan of opioids and have used them on many occasions. They make me a better person, they make me more empathetic, loving, happy, and grateful for my life and the people in it. They also help treat my severe back pain I endure due to three herniated discs. As a matter of fact in just a couple hours i will be taking an opioid called Mitragynine, for the reasons I just listed. That is me pursuing happiness. I should not have to run the risk of going to prison, losing my kids, losing my high paying job, or dying from contamination because I enjoy a drug other than alcohol or cannabis. We the people don’t get to take inalienable rights from the people. That’s not how our constitution is supposed to work. If you want to bank your argument on the constitution at least understand what it says in the context of this argument. 

People who argue for drugs to be banned are arguing for the corruption of the pursuit of happiness. They are saying anyone who consumes these drugs must be thrown in a cage and locked away for years at a time in most cases. Unless, of course, the person is using the drugs alcohol or cannabis, then they are free to go. As i have said just because we legalize it, heroin will not be perfectly safe. Just like sky diving isn’t perfectly safe. Yet there are regulations in place and safety procedures and education to make the person engage with that activity as safe as possible.

His point about sex education makes no sense. People have sex, most of the time, not to make a baby, but to enjoy a few minutes with their partner. So it’s an enjoyment thing most of the time for most of the population of our country. It’s not like I’m sitting down with my girlfriend and saying “we must engage in this activity to keep our species alive” no we engage in sex because it is enjoyable. Just like engaging with heroin. It is enjoyable, but both are dangerous, so education needs to be good to help minimize the risks the activity. It has worked for sex, it has the potential to work for drugs.

My opponent also says that heroin would need to be distributed differently than alcohol or cannabis. Even though I pretty clearly outlined how it should be sold. He didn’t explain how he thinks it should be sold or why it should be sold differently so I will let him do that if he pleases. If he doesn’t, it’s a moot point. The reason it should be sold the way I’m claiming is simple. 1: giving people access to clean needles (if they chose to inject it) is good and will prevent the spread of STDs. 2: giving people a place to use heroin with other people around is good because in the unlikely event of an overdose people will notice. 3: everyone who is an adult should have the right to purchase the drug, just as they do with alcohol and cannabis. 4: concentrations of the drug need to be clearly marked so people know how much of the product to take. 5: quality control to prevent dangerous contamination.

The reason I would like to see possession limits is also simple. I want there to be minimal street trafficking. By limiting how much a person can buy a day, will help cut that down. The only addition to this distribution structure I would like to see is recommended dosages on the packaging much like we see with prescription drugs. For example packaging could read “light dose: 5mg injected, 10mg snorted” “heavy dose 15mg injected, 30mg snorted” 

This is why I said alcohol and cannabis, the distribution structures need to be combined in some sense for these types of drugs. 

He also says drugs have no nourishment (particularly illegal ones) it was him that made that distinction not me. So I must ask, what nourishment are you claiming tobacco has? Also what does nourishment even mean in this context? Because surely you could see how pain relieving, mood boosting, and cough suppressing qualities of heroin can certainly be beneficial. 

He also says he needs to see an experiment of some sort to see whether or not this is true. We can take a look a Portugal. While they have not fully legalized drugs, they have decriminalized them, but also rolled out a wide reaching and effective program to provide testing equipment that is cheap and readily available to their population. Something that absolute must be done if the route of decriminalization is taken. If there is no testing equipment and drugs are decriminalized, it will make the problem of death by contamination worse. Portugal made this drug reform in 2001. For the first 5 years they saw an increase in drug use, that slowly began to drop. Today less people use drugs than pre reform. However not only do less people use drugs, far less people die from them. Per 1,000,000 people, only 6 sue in portugal. Compare that to the US, for that same statistic the US has 300 deaths. There is your experiment, and there is your answer. When people have the ability to test their drugs accurately, it saves lives. It also lands less people in jail which mean less lives are ruined by the government. 

In the US it is currently illegal in the majority of states to posses a fentanyl test strip. It is considered drug paraphernalia and you can be arrested just for possessing that. This is a very important thing that just be legalized, even if heroin isn’t, because fentanyl is usually what leads people to dying because they are unaware they are taking it. fentanyl isn’t a bad drug, it’s actually a pretty miraculous drug in a lot of ways, but that’s not what we are talking about. When someone doesn’t know they’re taking the drug it can easily lead to their death. So not only is heroin illegal in our country, but people can’t even test their substances for it, in the majority of US states. Do you think that is appropriate?

“You went over a lot of drug information and what they amount to, composition and regulatory procedures. To get down to the meat and potatoes because that's what I do, I get right down to it in that your view is regulate just how you would for other things.”

You didn’t get down into anything besides ignorant takes and strawmans. 

“But what you quite didn't bank on is that the death toll and adverse effects are present with current regulations and legal drug usage. Making similar regulations won't help your cause or your position.”

This doesn’t make any sense, alcohol kills people, yes. However, as I clearly pointed out, when it was illegal the harms of alcohol consumption were much higher than now. 

Portugal Stats- https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

Alcohol metabolism- https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/alcohol-metabolism#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20ethanol%20in,CH3CHO)%2C%20a%20known%20carcinogen.

Alcohol blindlings and death during prohibition- https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poison

US government attempting to poison cannabis- https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/paraquat-pot/

Benefits of moderate alcohol consumption- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/moderate-alcohol-intake-may-decrease-mens-risk-for-type-2-diabetes/#:~:text=Like%20previous%20studies%20by%20others,protecting%20against%20type%202%20diabetes.

"I never said legalization would make all risks of drugs go away.I never said people would stop dying."

I never said that either. You're putting a strawman on what you claim I'm making a strawman of. Let's just agree there's a misunderstanding between us. It sounds nicer and warm .

"I said it would lower the chances of people dying, because when drugs are illegal, they become contaminated with other drugs and that causes a dangerous situation to form. "

Ok ok ok ok ok ok ok. Understand me understand me understand what I'm saying. The topic is about legalizing heroin to be sold as similar to alcohol and cannabis. Just looking at alcohol alone, just alcohol, if we follow the logic, looking at the ramifications of alcohol, doing the same with heroin will not be an improvement. You'd have to do some different with it in terms of legality.

Is there anything you don't understand about what this means?

Bring it forth, let's go over it.

That's really all you have to deal with in this debate. You clear that up, it's over.

"His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means."

You can call it a rant . I just presented information from several websites of data. 

"Alcohol is much, much more toxic than heroin. "

I'm not debating the lesser of two evils or poisons equation. They're in the toxic category. A sip of alcohol is less toxic than years of heroin use . So what?

You should know better than this. Both of these substances have ramifications. We already are in a society of observable consequences with one as a social elective.

Once it goes there, it leaves opportunity to amplify the consequences.

So being that we know that, the issue is already prevalent. We can't do something similar expecting a completely different and opposing result.

"Usually because most heroin users (and alcohol users) don’t drive when high, or drunk. "

Well addressing the elephant in the room it's called illegal. Which is why there's a great polarity.

"So you picking this drug that has some legitimate toxicity concerns, that is already legal, as a way of saying a drug with less toxicity shouldn’t be legalized is odd to me."

It's because I never made the statement. I've been saying you can't legalize and regulate heroin the same or in a similar fashion.

"However, his alcohol rant is further destroyed when we see the situation that arose during alcohol prohibition. 10s of thousands of people were dying from contaminated alcohol."

I'll reiterate and perhaps it'll be clearer for you to respond to next round. Alcohol is already legal. We see the ramifications under the current regulations. Why make similar regulations for another substance that has ramifications of it's own?

According to you, it's about safety. I think you're position is cross wired with making one thing legal like another with having regulations similar and it'll be safe for use. I guess the presumption of yours is something is illegal due to a safety element. That wire crosses with the reality of alcoholic issues that are apparently not safe , which makes a catch 22 on you. Your cross wire done blew a fuse in your argumentative system that has lost power before it could ramp up passed the first round.

"However it is much less dangerous to purchase and use now, than it was during alcohol prohibition, for the reasons I just listed. "

I guess those websites I told you about were lying. Hey I don't blame you. Some folks just have to experience things for themselves.

"I will ignore my opponent making axiomatic assumptions like calling drugs poison. No use in engaging with that. "

I think you agree heroin is toxic. You said alcohol is MORE toxic than it. So in order to make the comparison, there would be a common trait to measure the difference and commonality. Toxicity is another word for poisonous. 

Ok I understand it doesn't sound good saying people are putting poison into their bodies electively. Putting dope, toxic, poison in your veins. I digress. Live a little, laugh a little, no big deal. No big deal reader, no big deal debateart.com

"We the people don’t get to take inalienable rights from the people. That’s not how our constitution is supposed to work. If you want to bank your argument on the constitution at least understand what it says in the context of this argument. "

The personal things about yourself you can leave out of this. When I say "we the people", people represent the government. The government is for and by the people. Without people, no government, go figure. In that, the government is a reflection of the people. That's the point I'm making. The government is the effect of the people which is the cause. Being that the effect follows the cause, the effect should be whatever caused it to be . The government should do or make legal what has been processed by the works of those in power, democracy, petition, etc., whatever to do it or by the duty to accomplish it.

"People who argue for drugs to be banned are arguing for the corruption of the pursuit of happiness. "

The pursuit of happiness is apparently subjective isn't?

The people that experience happiness in a drug free environment while others fight to endow the world with drugs are fighting to corrupt their happiness. So I guess we can play this both ways.

All I say is without getting subjective is that the government is the reflection of the people and I leave it there. I don't detail or express what the actual image is or supposed to be or it's this or that. It just is whatever it is.

"They are saying anyone who consumes these drugs must be thrown in a cage and locked away for years at a time in most cases."

The debate appears to be going into a tangent of a gripe you may have with anti-drug folks. But I can entertain it. Do you think it's so bad to live optimally healthy with an organic highly vegetative diet, drug free lifestyle and everything else to avoid incarceration? Is it that hard?

Is it really worth getting locked up and losing whatever you have which you brought on yourself?

Is happiness more important than health or vice versa?

Some would rather live unhealthy if they can be happy.

"As i have said just because we legalize it, heroin will not be perfectly safe. Just like sky diving isn’t perfectly safe. Yet there are regulations in place and safety procedures and education to make the person engage with that activity as safe as possible."

Sounds like you're admitting Indirectly that all of these things to be legalized to be sold and distributed similarly, the ramifications will be what they'll be similarly when you say not perfectly. You're dropping the increase of safety point for real.

Those articles I presented that displays the graphs shows the legal substance with that high number. So extrapolate legalizing everything else, we can project those numbers to rise for them as well.

"My opponent also says that heroin would need to be distributed differently than alcohol or cannabis. Even though I pretty clearly outlined how it should be sold. "

So do you agree it has to be done differently or similarly? Which one? 

Really bottom line question to this topic.

"He didn’t explain how he thinks it should be sold or why it should be sold differently so I will let him do that if he pleases. "

So because I'm not arguing for heroin to be legal, I don't argue how it should be sold. That would be an oxymoron.

Why should it be sold differently? According to you I thought you were for safety or increasing the safety. If you use the same or similar regulations for one drug or substance that has already demonstrated a deleterious effect, the intuitive direction to go would be opposite and different to get the counter effect, opposing effect.

Do you follow?

"So I must ask, what nourishment are you claiming tobacco has?"

None. Tobacco is not essential for anybody to live. I never made any such statement. You, I and the  readers know that.

"Also what does nourishment even mean in this context?"

Thank you for seeking the meaning of words from others, very good. It is what has us to survive. For example something to sustain organic matter, what is nourishing provides fuel for our living cells.

"So not only is heroin illegal in our country, but people can’t even test their substances for it, in the majority of US states. Do you think that is appropriate?"

Do I think it's appropriate to be unable to test for something that is illegal to test for ?

Let's unpack this and walk through the logic. Something that is appropriate for something else would be like water that is drawn through a circular straw that fits into a hole from a source of a container of such substance. 

It's what fits , it's what's compatible. This is made possible by design and structure. When we look at the law it's designed to restrict. That is having law abiding citizens fit within a law effective citizenship.

So in answer to the question with all that we know, no. It does not fit or the two do not go together. Trying to do otherwise causes a clash and everything is made to fit by restricting and restraining by law and or by prisons.

"You didn’t get down into anything besides ignorant takes and strawmans. "

I want us to have a clear understanding. We're in a debate. We don't have to fight to understand one another. Do you agree that heroin has to be done differently or similarly in terms of regulating sale and distribution?

Let me respond to the sex education thing. I almost missed it.

"His point about sex education makes no sense. People have sex, most of the time, not to make a baby, but to enjoy a few minutes with their partner. So it’s an enjoyment thing most of the time for most of the population of our country."

My point was about sex education, not the reason people personally choose in their mind to do it . Let's get this straight see. Get the understanding in what I'm saying. Sex education. Sex education where we learn about the sexual reproductive system and sexually transmitted diseases. I know your on this pleasure seeking happiness thing. But at least be attentive to the particular point I'm making. Appreciate it .

"It’s not like I’m sitting down with my girlfriend and saying “we must engage in this activity to keep our species alive” no we engage in sex because it is enjoyable. "

The thought process in your mind let's say is recreation; enjoyment. The functionality in the act is what it is. See just because in mind I have a taste for a specific dish of food, it does not change the functionality of what that food does for my system.

See there's a duality there. I'm not trying to disregard one of them as it appears you're doing.

Just real talk.

"Just like engaging with heroin. It is enjoyable, but both are dangerous, so education needs to be good to help minimize the risks the activity. It has worked for sex, it has the potential to work for drugs"

Again, FALSE equivalency. You'll find nowhere as in NO textbook, heroin is essential for us to survive unlike nutritional consumption (food) and consummation (sex). 

Let's just be intellectually honest. These drugs you talking about to be legalized, dope, junk and whatnot, just recreation. That's why you made the point about pursuit of happiness. Not necessarily about the pursuit of optimal health. The two are indeed separable.

"This doesn’t make any sense, alcohol kills people, yes. However, as I clearly pointed out, when it was illegal the harms of alcohol consumption were much higher than now. "

Nothing is going to make sense when you miss the point I make.

I reiterate the following:

"Deductive conclusions based on current legalities with alcohol and the ramifications therein, if you actually want a safer environment with a reduction in fatalities, something different has to be done with heroin altogether. "

I hope there is better understanding from you of this. 

Good job comrade, you picked the debate of the century.

I am not going to get into a quote and response battle with Mall again in this debate. It’s generally pointless. I hope the judges can see how ridiculous his claims about health and well being are. Why didn’t my opponent bring up caffeine when talking about legal drugs? Caffeine is every bit of a drug as alcohol is. It’s just less toxic, so it kills less people. Which is the point im making about heroin. Heroin is less toxic than alcohol so even when legalized there’s no reason to believe it would kill more people than alcohol. My opponent has also used “sources” that just make claims with no evidence to support them. 

About the sex argument he said something to the effect of “find me a text book that says heroin is necessary for life.” He was saying that sex is necessary for life, which is true, however that’s not why people do it. So I ask him to find me a text book that says having sex with a condom is necessary to life. he can’t, people do it to enjoy it. 

Also, he is now moving the goalposts and ignoring the constitution. He nit picks the constitution, essentislly claims that the inalienable rights can be taken away by the majority, and he has also moved into the “everything must be healthy.” Argument. Which is why he randomly brought up diets. Hopefully the judges can see how absurd his argument on that topic is, it’s useless to engage with it. 

my next major argument for this debate is the amount of people who have their lives ruined by heroin possession charges. Over 200,000 people are arrested each year with something to do with heroin possession or distribution. That is 200,000 lives being completely upended by our government. They lose their kids, go to jail, lose their jobs, potentially go to prison, potentially carry a felony drug charge with them the rest of their life. This ruins more lives than thebdrug itself takes and ruins. Most people who use heroin are not addicts. If my opponent combats this I will break down how that is known and what addiction is in the final round. Less than 20,000 people die a year from just heroin. 200,000 people have their lives completely ruined by our government. Losing your kids will ruin your life, losing your job can ruin your life, etc. 

https://drugabusestatistics.org/drug-related-crime-statistics/#:~:text=47%2C380%20Americans%20are%20arrested%20annually,%2C%20cocaine%2C%20and%20derivative%20products.

This is all because of people like my opponent. Who believe their opinion trumps peoples rights to make decisions as to what they put in their own body. He can’t even call the drug what it is. He is so agenda driven that he has to call it Junk, poison, and trash. He didn’t engage with any of the pharmacological aspects of the drug, he can’t even admit that he’s completely ignorant as to what drugs are and what they do. 

With legalizing heroin, less people will go to prison, and it will bring massive amounts of money into our tax system and economy. Cannabis and alcohol are both billion dollars industries. Americans spend 150 billion dollars a year on illegal drugs. This is a huge economic opportunity that the country has. They also have the opportunity to show that individual freedom is an important aspect of our country. While safety is important, it is not important than freedom. Taking away freedom makes things more dangerous, especially heroin. This is an opportunity for our government to increase the amount of freedom, and increase the amount of safety to the people of our country who use drugs, particularly heroin.

The arrests aren’t the only issue prohibition poses. The other issue is that prohibition gives police a free excuse to abuse people while arresting them, if they suspect they possess drugs. There are so many cases of officers planting evidence, brutalizing people, killing people, maiming people, all in the name of the drug war. the drug war is propagated  by people like my opponent. Who say things like my opponent says. Even though my opponent has 0 knowledge on the topic of pharmacology, neurochemistry, psychopharmacology, and pharmacokinetics he feels comfortable making claims about those topics and enforcing and supporting laws that govern those topics. That is why we are in a situation where people are murdered, arrested, and have their lives destroyed because they use drugs other than alcohol or cannabis. 

People will still die of heroin is legalized. That is tragic. People die from caffeine overdoses as well but no one is calling for that or alcohol to be banned. People die from riding motorcycles as well. We can’t take every dangerous activity away from people, the most the government can do is attempt to make them as safe as possible. They can also stop actively trying to ruin lives through arrests, beatings, and prison sentences in regards to heroin. 

I know this is a short argument, my opponent is giving me very little to work with. Nothing he has said is really worth engaging with, and I’m not a fan of quoting and responding type arguments, especially when my opponent is missing the point of everything I have said. If he could find a way to actually disprove anything I’m saying I’d be able to respond. He hasn’t, he hasn’t countered any of the pharmacology, he hasn’t countered any of the added layers of danger that prohibition poses, he hasn’t countered anything about the inalienable rights with valid arguments. He isn’t actually arguing against anything I’m saying, he’s just not picking sentences out of each paragraph and trying to twist the meaning into something he can counter. 

For the last round, come with data and evidence that disproves the idea that prohibition causes more harm than it fixes. Tell me exactly why my inalienable right of my pursuit of happiness should be taken away. Tell my why contamination doesn’t make drugs more dangerous. Tell me why getting rid of the contamination issue won’t make drug user safer. Tell me why people should have their lives ruined by the government and laws. Tell me why heroin is a highly toxic “poison.” Etc. If your points on everything I just listed are even worth engaging with I will engage with them. 

Again, I wish I had more to work with, I hope the judges understand why I’m not engaging with most of his argument and why this entry is so short. 

Vote pro, for evidence, arguments, sources. 

I don’t know about conduct. 

" I hope the judges can see how ridiculous his claims about health and well being are. "

You can call the government ridiculous. They still didn't legalize heroin for you. I wonder if they did, would the ramifications be way worse than alcohol. Leave these drugs alone. You mess around and kill yourself.

"Why didn’t my opponent bring up caffeine when talking about legal drugs? "

Caffeine is legal like alcohol so what are you talking about? The topic is about heroin and alcohol.

"Heroin is less toxic than alcohol so even when legalized there’s no reason to believe it would kill more people than alcohol. "

I got a reason to believe it. It's called OVERDOSING. You know you didn't prove this is an impossibility. You're constantly trying to drive this lesser of the two evils (poisons). They both have their ramifications.

"My opponent has also used “sources” that just make claims with no evidence to support them. "

Evidence is what you can see for yourself. It's what your senses detect. Giving what somebody has written is just that. Fairy Tales aren't proof of characters in it that exist in reality because it's written. It has to be corroborated.

I just provided information to explain more of what I'm talking about.

"He was saying that sex is necessary for life, which is true, however that’s not why people do it. So I ask him to find me a text book that says having sex with a condom is necessary to life. he can’t, people do it to enjoy it. "

I don't care the reason WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DO IT. I just made that point. Did you not read it? What a shame when it comes to these debates, people get so defensive like they have blinders on . People's reasoning doesn't change it's function which you conceded that it is essential for life as opposed to heroin. So why not be humble, say good point, leave it at that? 

I don't know what point you tried to make with the condom. It looks like you just try to come up with anything in attempt to counter. Instead of just saying "you're right", you just have to throw something out there  in a pretentious manner appearing like a rebuttal.

"Which is why he randomly brought up diets. Hopefully the judges can see how absurd his argument on that topic is, it’s useless to engage with it. "

In other words you have no rebuttal. You're conceding is accepted.

"my next major argument for this debate is the amount of people who have their lives ruined by heroin possession charges. "

They ruined their own lives taking junk getting mixed up in it , whatever. Be accountable and own up to it. Don't blame that on the law. YOU KNOWWW BETTER. You don't behave yourself out in the world, you get put in the corner sitting in time out doing your time in a jail cell.

"They lose their kids, go to jail, lose their jobs, potentially go to prison, potentially carry a felony drug charge with them the rest of their life. This ruins more lives than thebdrug itself takes and ruins. Most people who use heroin are not addicts. If my opponent combats this I will break down how that is known and what addiction is in the final round. Less than 20,000 people die a year from just heroin. 200,000 people have their lives completely ruined by our government. Losing your kids will ruin your life, losing your job can ruin your life, etc. "

Don't do the crime, won't have to do the time. Say it with me everybody. Don't do the crime, won't have to do the crime.

It's funny, this WOE IS US IS ME jazz, cry me a river. Being that you couldn't refute that living a healthy drug free lifestyle won't get you time in the slammer, I'll say this, it would be the solution. The solution is not legalizing things that aren't even essential to live anyway. 

Actually involve yourself into a lifestyle, do the things that are optimally healthy. You're going backwards and your best response was that mess of points you made talking about absurdity. 

No what's ridiculous is you thinking a solution is accumulating deleterious things to do thinking it's more safe. If the object is "more safe" or the "most safe" , why not just live optimally healthy period?

You the one talking about a solution for a better interest and welfare in regards to people, their families, jobs, I'm just providing you more consistency in your so called more safe agenda.

Matter of fact, I'm giving you absolute consistency. Rethink this, go back to the drawing board. I'm convinced anyway it's not so much safety but zero in on a loophole to expand your recreational brand of choice.

"This is all because of people like my opponent. Who believe their opinion trumps peoples rights to make decisions as to what they put in their own body."

Don't blame me for what other people do. Grow up.

"He is so agenda driven that he has to call it Junk, poison, and trash."

I can say with much certainty that's what it is. You already admitted it's toxic. You got to get caught up in the language. Does it bother you? The government has already driven the agenda, does that bother you?

"He didn’t engage with any of the pharmacological aspects of the drug, he can’t even admit that he’s completely ignorant as to what drugs are and what they do. "

Oh these drugs are illegal..that's what they are. What do they do ? They get yourself locked up or grave yard dead . See me and those that agree, we gotta be unapologetic. Next thing this brainwashing from the other side will spread on to the young generation to the next.

"With legalizing heroin, less people will go to prison, and it will bring massive amounts of money into our tax system and economy. "

Duh, what else would be of legalization? Doesn't mean the government will oblige.

"They also have the opportunity to show that individual freedom is an important aspect of our country."

Sure and the same country can bust you anytime for some reason to break up your freedom. If you haven't realized it by now, I recommend to start using the term freedom loosely, cautiously. Freedom of speech, all that. You mentioned economy, taxes, money. All those articles tend to conflict eventually. 

You're not as free as you think you are. It's not as significant as you think. You have to be law abiding first and foremost than anything else. Busts up the freedom for would be aspiring outlaws.

"While safety is important, it is not important than freedom."

I guess you meant to say not more important. If it was not more important, pedophiles wouldn't get locked up , restraining their freedom to lay down with a child.

"Taking away freedom makes things more dangerous, especially heroin. "

By this logic, having prison systems makes more danger than what it would be without them.

Go back to that drawing board and rethink these points.

"This is an opportunity for our government to increase the amount of freedom, and increase the amount of safety to the people of our country who use drugs, particularly heroin."

Whoa, don't wait on the government. People take the liberty to award themselves the freedom to do what they do. Maybe argue on how users to just be smarter to avoid getting caught.

"The arrests aren’t the only issue prohibition poses."

Arrests are the enforcement that comes from illegality. The problem is people breaking the law. Yes we're going to hold the lawbreakers that do indeed break the law themselves accountable. So because they can't be law abiding, it seems to be too hard for them , the only solution for now is arresting them.

*The other issue is that prohibition gives police a free excuse to abuse people while arresting them, if they suspect they possess drugs. "

Does anybody take accountability for themselves in your worldview?

Now you blame the law for what corrupt so called cops do. The corrupt that do anything unlawful, they pay for the crime. What you've been saying, it is coming off as anarchist rhetoric .

"There are so many cases of officers planting evidence, brutalizing people, killing people, maiming people, all in the name of the drug war. the drug war is propagated by people like my opponent."

I have nothing to do with these lawbreakers. The lawbreakers get locked up . This is kind of sad you passing the buck around. Got to wise up and grow up.

"Who say things like my opponent says. Even though my opponent has 0 knowledge on the topic of pharmacology, neurochemistry, psychopharmacology, and pharmacokinetics he feels comfortable making claims about those topics and enforcing and supporting laws that govern those topics. "

You can continue to say whatever you want and be prejudgmental, but don't do the crime, you won't have to do the time. This is just coming off as a gripe from you. Your arguments come off as crying for really a liberal libertarian hedonistic value. That's pretty much where you're going. We just don't have a type of society that is that far gone yet.

"That is why we are in a situation where people are murdered, arrested, and have their lives destroyed because they use drugs other than alcohol or cannabis. "

Live right people, just say no. Do you remember that? Just say no. Just say no everybody.

Trust me you'll be alright.

"People will still die of heroin is legalized. That is tragic. People die from caffeine overdoses as well but no one is calling for that or alcohol to be banned. People die from riding motorcycles as well. We can’t take every dangerous activity away from people, the most the government can do is attempt to make them as safe as possible. They can also stop actively trying to ruin lives through arrests, beatings, and prison sentences in regards to heroin."

Man what do we do? What is the answer to all this? Well we're not legalizing heroin but maybe we'll come up with something.

"I know this is a short argument, my opponent is giving me very little to work with." 

Very little or nothing to refute basically from what I'm giving.

"Nothing he has said is really worth engaging with, and I’m not a fan of quoting and responding type arguments, especially when my opponent is missing the point of everything I have said. If he could find a way to actually disprove anything I’m saying I’d be able to respond. He hasn’t, he hasn’t countered any of the pharmacology, he hasn’t countered any of the added layers of danger that prohibition poses, he hasn’t countered anything about the inalienable rights with valid arguments. He isn’t actually arguing against anything I’m saying, he’s just not picking sentences out of each paragraph and trying to twist the meaning into something he can counter. "

Nothing you can refute to engage with so be it. 

"For the last round, come with data and evidence that disproves the idea that prohibition causes more harm than it fixes. "

 

You didn't prove heroin should be legalized like alcohol and cannabis because it'll be safer.  So what am I disproving?

Nothing.

"Tell me exactly why my inalienable right of my pursuit of happiness should be taken away."

Whenever you break the law, that goes for anybody, you're no exception, it gets taken away. Hopefully you understand that by now .

"Tell my why contamination doesn’t make drugs more dangerous."

The only way would be if the contamination is smaller than a molecule depending on the source. Also the way the body responds to it is another factor.

I'm just giving you basic rational points. Regardless of what you can come up with, the ramifications to heroin still exist. The possibilities and risks still exist. We are not talking about broccoli here , we're talking about heroin. We have to be more strategic with this so it can't be dealt with similarly to alcohol which shows extensive ramifications of its own. 

That's one thing you haven't dealt with this whole debate is about selling, legalizing similarly. I don't believe you answered any questions of mine which is a dodge to avoid refutation. Just exposes you .

"Tell me why getting rid of the contamination issue won’t make drug user safer."

That's because a person can overdose and everything else that comes with it. Any other problem health wise, financially, indecent behavior, etc. that escalates into more issues. The cons win over the pros.

"Tell me why people should have their lives ruined by the government and laws. "

It teaches the lesson to those that have yet to break the laws and demonstrates the CONSEQUENCES of such acts. Yes let's not forget about the consequences to actions.

"Tell me why heroin is a highly toxic “poison.” Etc. If your points on everything I just listed are even worth engaging with I will engage with them. "

If you don't engage you just forfeit. You don't refute by not engaging. Just a copout.

It's highly toxic in an individual that has overdosed. It goes by the amount we're talking about. Many things can be toxic based on the amount. The damage has already begun to the body using dope. It's a matter of how gradual the damage occurs or how fast the body can heal or recuperate after damage has been inflicted.

"Again, I wish I had more to work with, I hope the judges understand why I’m not engaging with most of his argument and why this entry is so short. "

 

"I wish I had more to work with". You wish you had more to work with. You didn't deal with my straightforward questions. You didn't want to engage, you refused, you evaded, you had nothing.

Again my opponent is falling back on calling drugs poison, without snagging with any of the points I made. 

He gave no reason not legalize heroin in this entire debate. He simply made illogical points with no evidence to back them. He’s also going back to the “don’t do illegal stuff” argument which is foolish. It used to be illegal let’s blacks into the same bars as whites, should they have never fixed that? Should blacks just have accepted obvious discrimination and injustice? Of course not. 

He has given no judge any reason to believe “just say no” is a valid approach to drugs. 

He also has completely missed my point about sex, I think it’s on purpose because it completely destroys his point on the topic. 

His argument is almost unreadable To anyone with a logical brain. 

His point about evidence is also just completely foolish. He actually has evidence completely messed up. He’s talking about perception. Perception is wrong all of the time, that is why science is a thing. It’s also why eye witness testimony in scientific issues is valued the least, and evidence and data is valued the most.

As i said if my opponent made any points worth engaging with about the pharmacology, reasons for keeping heroin illegal, etc. I would engage with them. He hasn’t provided a single valuable source of information in this entire debate and is operating off of his preconceived opinions of heroin and isn’t listening or considering the points I have made. I have studied pharmacology, psychopharmacology, and neurochemistry for half a decade. He hasn’t studied it for 10 minutes and believes he’s in a position to make claims and ignore mine. The topic of drugs is kind of like fighting. Everyone thinks they know everything about drugs just like everyone thinks they know how to fight, it’s a weird thing.

My opponent also brought up OVERDOSE. If he would’ve been paying attention he would’ve seen the statistic that less than 20,000 people die a year from heroin overdose alone. It is pretty hard to die from a heroin overdose alone. The average lethal dose for a 150 pound person is over 120mg. A heavy dose that would put even a tolerant user to sleep is 30-40mg. Not many people are taking damn near 10x that dose. The deaths come from contaminated products and ignorance. Ignorance of what can and can’t be mixed. 

So I’ll recap the reasons heroin should be legalized.

I have provided evidence, data and sources for every claim I have made so far, my opponent has only provided evidence that alcohol kills more people than heroin, so he agrees with me. What he hasn’t provided evidence for is that more people would die from heroin overdoses if it was legalized. I have provided evidence to the contrary, very sound and concise evidence for that claim. Using data from other countries. We can also look at Sweden that has heroin clinics where they administer pure heroin to their patients. They’ve had very good results from this program. Including less death, and better treatment for heroin addiction.

In no way would it be possible to vote him as the winner of this debate because he has provided 0 evidence and hasn’t refuted a single claim I have made with any level of logic. Just a bunch of anti-drug rhetoric. Remember judges, he can’t even call the drug by it’s name, he calls it poison and junk. Even though drugs that do the same exact thing to the brain are cleared by the FDA, and even though heroin itself was invented by the same guy who invented Aspirin and used to be a very valuable tool in treating many ailments. From bronchitis to broken limbs. He doesn’t know anything about this topic. I provided the better arguments, sources, and my writing was much easier to read. 

Vote pro. 

Just reading the first few lines I can tell you've made your choice not to engage. I mean if you truly were reading my points , understanding them , perhaps you would intelligently counter them, ask questions etc .

Well since I have the character space and for the sake of edification, I'll counter and reiterate for the umpteenth time.

This is when you know somebody is not accepting or ignoring what you're saying.

I mean I'm quoting you just so all can see that at least I'm not ignoring your statements.

"Again my opponent is falling back on calling drugs poison, without snagging with any of the points I made. "

I call them poison, you call them toxic, so what? Don't let the words trip you up. If you're a user, don't let the words make you feel insecure. Any points I snag are the ones I put in quotes if you didn't know that.

"He gave no reason not legalize heroin in this entire debate."

This wasn't my point. If you've been reading which you may have but just couldn't accept what I was saying, I've been saying you can't legalize heroin in the SIMILAR fashion as alcohol and cannabis. The topic is about heroin being legalized similarly. The topic is not about heroin to be legalized or not at all. Did you forget the format of the topic? So my position consistently has been you should not legalize heroin in a similar way. You never once ,not once denied heroin shouldn't be done in a different way. All you kept doing was going over regulations which tells me that you very well are giving totally different regulations than alcohol but don't want to reveal the conceding to that. That's fine but the public has to realize that of course.

Since the agenda is about being "more safe", the more different in legal regulation compared with alcohol the safer. Why ? Logically speaking, it's intuitive that it would be safer given the current regulations on alcohol surrounding the reality of its ramifications already.

It's the same instinct you receive when approaching a martial artist whom has defeated someone in a particular system. The instinctive response if I'm going to face this martial artist is to adopt a different system.

"He simply made illogical points with no evidence to back them. "

Ok and an example would be......

You make these statements and don't demonstrate anything. Just baseless assertions.

"He’s also going back to the “don’t do illegal stuff” argument which is foolish. "

So it's not foolish to break the law. No the fools are the ones who are locked up.

"It used to be illegal let’s blacks into the same bars as whites, should they have never fixed that?"

Not my department. My point is you are the fool that breaks the law. If you want to change a law, vote and petition. That's how government works. What should be legal and not is based upon it.

"Should blacks just have accepted obvious discrimination and injustice? Of course not. "

I don't know if you're speaking for other people but the reality was the people that wanted to change the law petition, marched , protested. There's no need even bringing this up . This does not compare to working to get laws passed on recreational garbage. People fought for their livelihood, civil rights, making a dent in so called white supremacy. Don't even touch that.

"He has given no judge any reason to believe “just say no” is a valid approach to drugs. "

If you're talking about a judge on the supreme Court, they got all the reasons as to why they haven't legalized heroin buddy .

"He also has completely missed my point about sex, I think it’s on purpose because it completely destroys his point on the topic. "

You miss mine so drop the hypocrisy.

"His argument is almost unreadable To anyone with a logical brain. "

Please no opinions. If you could answer my questions, you could of held that much more credit.

"His point about evidence is also just completely foolish. He actually has evidence completely messed up. He’s talking about perception. Perception is wrong all of the time, that is why science is a thing. It’s also why eye witness testimony in scientific issues is valued the least, and evidence and data is valued the most."

You stay missing my point. I can't really help you better than this . I tried. 

"He hasn’t provided a single valuable source of information in this entire debate and is operating off of his preconceived opinions of heroin and isn’t listening or considering the points I have made. I have studied pharmacology, psychopharmacology, and neurochemistry for half a decade. He hasn’t studied it for 10 minutes and believes he’s in a position to make claims and ignore mine."

I guess we  have to have a conversation in order for you to communicate with me. It's not only you. People tend to reject you or shut you out when in a debate. I believe that defensive wall is so thick,  I am just talking to a wall. There are those that are willing to engage, communicate, answer questions. But unfortunately it's not every time. Just because we're in a debate, we can still converse. I'm the only one quoting and responding. No that isn't negligent behavior.

Can we get some honesty in the house?

"My opponent also brought up OVERDOSE. If he would’ve been paying attention he would’ve seen the statistic that less than 20,000 people die a year from heroin overdose alone. "

Oh 20,000 I'm not going to downplay at all. That's not good. That's not acceptable. I brought up overdose and you saying 20,000 like it doesn't still mean people overdosed. They OVERDOSED. Now I've been making responses like this all debate long. What do you do? You blow them off, dismiss them, convey they're not worth anything, they're foolish, ridiculous. Copout move from you.

I just said overdose, you come back and just put a number on it. Ok it doesn't change what it is. You're saying the same thing specifying a number. You can have all the statistics you want. The stats agree with me. Bottom line , stats say people overdose. I say sex is essential for life. You come back and say that's true but this but that . It doesn't change what I said. This is just you wanting to fight for the sake of .

"It is pretty hard to die from a heroin overdose alone. The average lethal dose for a 150 pound person is over 120mg. A heavy dose that would put even a tolerant user to sleep is 30-40mg. Not many people are taking damn near 10x that dose. The deaths come from contaminated products and ignorance. Ignorance of what can and can’t be mixed. "

Then you try to combat your own response on stats you gave on overdosing . PEOPLE STILL DIE FROM IT PERIOD . Trying to downplay and take the light off something to avoid refutation in an ad hoc sense, I mean just concede agreement.

"So I’ll recap the reasons heroin should be legalized."

This is not the topic. No wonder you dodged my question.

All I wanted to know from you are those regulations different or similar.

"In no way would it be possible to vote him as the winner of this debate because he has provided 0 evidence and hasn’t refuted a single claim I have made with any level of logic."

You do know the entire United States government votes for me . 

Heroin is actually illegal.

"Just a bunch of anti-drug rhetoric. Remember judges, he can’t even call the drug by it’s name, he calls it poison and junk. "

Ok heroin, heroin, heroin. 

Another claim put on me without demonstration.

"Even though drugs that do the same exact thing to the brain are cleared by the FDA, and even though heroin itself was invented by the same guy who invented Aspirin and used to be a very valuable tool in treating many ailments. From bronchitis to broken limbs. He doesn’t know anything about this topic. I provided the better arguments, sources, and my writing was much easier to read. "

Then why isn't it legal like aspirin?

Could it be you have cherry picked "sources"?

I'll leave it here. Oh HEROIN is illegal.

I've repeated myself enough. People can get the summarized gist of my stance.

Let's address your comments.

"Have you learned anything at all about drugs in either of them? If so has it changed the way you view drugs at all?"

Where was all this questioning from you in this debate? 

I on the other hand can answer. Have I learned anything, yes.  To the second question, yes and no .

So that's good.

"If you haven’t learned anything, would you like to learn something?"

Yes I always like to learn period. The whole universe is a school of learning.

"Ask some question and I’ll answer them. "

For real. I don't recall you answering any of mine in this debate.

"Another side is that if you haven’t learned anything, are you even trying to learn something and listen?"

Sure. Just practice what you're preaching me to do, alright. Be prepared to consider that you may have to let go of your current stances.